____________________________________________ New Jersey Education Reform: Dispelling the Myths Superintendents’ Symposium on PARCC and Student Learning February 2015 Vincent R. DeLucia Educator-in-Residence/ Director of Training and Professional Development

Vincent R. De Lucia 34 years: School District Experience »South Brunswick , »North Brunswick years: Pharmaceutical/Medial Device/Imaging 5 years:Small Business Owner Assistant Superintendent Director of Professional Development & Communications Principal-Middle School Among the 1 st -162 Nationally Board Certified Teachers in USA ( Early Adolescent English/LA) Mayor Husband, Father, & Grandfather

NJSBA/NJPSA Collaborative Survey ALL Board Presidents and Superintendents –Communications: Concerns/Objections to PARCC from community, staff, etc.? –Implementation Challenges: related to the implementation of PARCC? –Assistance from a NJSBA/NJPSA Consultant? Cadre of trained retired principals Funded by the CCSSO (Council of Chief State School Officers)

15 Myths about CCSS and PARCC 1.State standards are stronger than the CCSS – FALSE 2.The CCSS will lower the expectations for our students – FALSE 3.Educators were not on the CCSS validation committee – FALSE 4.Comparisons of CCSS to other nations’ standards are not available – FALSE 5.Global competition is not real. Look at the number of Nobel laureates and PhDs in engineering in the U.S. – Global competition is a reality.

15 Myths about CCSS and PARCC 6.Body sensors be placed on students to monitor them during PARCC administration – FALSE 7.End-of-Year exams may not be given in the year of course completion (e.g., Algebra I) – FALSE 8.The Grade 8 PARCC will determine if a student is placed in a college-prep or vo-tech track – FALSE 9.PARCC was developed without teacher input – FALSE 10. PARCC test questions are unproven; it’s impossible to know if they will measure what they should – FALSE

15 Myths about CCSS and PARCC 11. PARCC will permit data mining of personal information – FALSE –Prohibited by Federal Educational Rights & Privacy Act (FERPA) –4 other federal laws prohibit the creation of a federal database with students’ personally identifiable information –States have control of all student data 12.PARCC assessments are far more expensive than current state tests – FALSE –NJASK/HSPA = $28.50 per student –PARCC, computer-based = $29.00 per student

15 Myths about CCSS and PARCC 13.International assessment data (PISA, TIMMS) is not valid – FALSE 14.CCSS Erode 2 nd Amendment Constitutional Rights – FALSE 15. CCSS include “Shocking” Sex Ed Standards – FALSE Opponents have even likened supporters of CCSS and PARCC to Adolph Hitler!

Does quoting Hitler contribute to the discussion? When given the opportunity to reject the use of this quote, the panelists refused to do so.

Two Opponents: Dr. Sandra Stotsky & Dr. James Milgram: Resigned from the CCSS Validation Committee Publicly allege that CCSS are weaker than state standards and that educators were excluded from the committee. But… Their own published analyses of the CCSS and individual states’ standards, including New Jersey’s Core Curriculum Content Standards, CONTRADICT their public statements

Stotsky/Milgram New Jersey Overall 1998 State Standards Grade] D+ New Jersey Overall 2000 State Standards Grade D+ New Jersey Overall 2005 State Standards Grade C CCSS Overall 2010 CCSS Grade B-

Common Core’s Standards Still Don’t Make the Grade: Why Massachusetts and California Must Regain Control Over Their Academic Destinies (A Pioneer Institute White Paper, No. 65, July 2010, Appendix 1, p. 59) by Sandra Stotsky and Ze’ev Wurman … with Review of Final Draft Core Standards by R. James Milgram “Overall, only the very best state mathematics standards, those of California, Massachusetts, Indiana and Minnesota are stronger than these standards. Most states would be far better off adopting the Core Math Standards than keeping their current standards.” – R. James Milgram

Debunking the PARCC Myths Body sensors will not be placed on students to monitor them EOY exams will be given in the same year that the course is competed (Algebra I) PARCC will not determine student placement in college-prep or vo-tech PARCC was developed with teacher input

Did you know? …the TOP 10 Jobs in 2010 were not in EXISTENCE in 2004? …the US Department of Labor reports by 38 years old, individuals will have between different jobs? …there are 31 billion Google searches/month? …today - 540,000 words in the English Language or 5X the amount during Shakespeare’s life? …the information in one week’s NY Times exceeds the information read in a lifetime during the 1800s? …4 exabytes of new information will be generated this year—more than the prior 5000 years? …the amount of new technology information doubles every 2 years?

What does that mean for students? For a student who starts a 4 year technology degree this means that HALF of that which they learn in their first year of study is OUTDATED by their 3 rd year of school! How does that impact… Students ? Instruction? Curricula? Learning? Critical ThinkingEvidence from Text Independent LearnersDeep Understanding

What does that mean for students? Critical Thinking Independent Learners Evidence from Text –Require analysis of text to select appropriate evidence Deep Understanding –Require students to explain the steps they took to get an answer PARCC assessments require students to demonstrate these traits

Is Global Competition Real? Dr. Christopher Tienken, PARCC opponent (So Jersey Citizens Against the CCSS-Vineland: ): –Doubts validity of data from PISA, TIMMS, etc. –Rejects global competition by citing U.S. achievements in Nobel Prizes awarded and PhDs (Engineering/Physics) –In response to China’s growing economy: “Americans should have more kids!”

Yes, Global Competition IS Real The Data Tell a Different Story… ­ 55% of students in engineering doctorate- level engineering programs are foreign born ­ 45% of PhDs working in US are foreign born ­ After earning their PhDs, 40% of foreign grads return to their homelands ­ Between : 87, or more than 30% of American Nobel Prize winners, were born in a foreign country

The Truth about CCSS CCSS are superior to the NJCCCS Global competition is real Too many students are NOT college or career ready CCSS are NOT a curriculum CCSS do NOT dictate lesson plans, materials, books, etc. Teachers participated in the CCSS development

CCSS Validation Committee Bryan Albrecht, President, Gateway Technical College, Kenosha, Wisconsin Arthur Applebee, Distinguished Professor, Center on English Learning & Achievement, School of Education, University at Albany, SUNY Sarah Baird, 2009 Arizona Teacher of the Year, K-5 Math Coach, Kyrene School District Jere Confrey, Joseph D. Moore Distinguished University Professor, William and Ida Friday Institute for Educational Innovation, College of Education, North Carolina State University David T. Conley, Professor, College of Education, University of Oregon CEO, Educational Policy Improvement Center (Co-Chair) Linda Darling-Hammond, Charles E. Ducommun Professor of Education, Stanford University Alfinio Flores, Hollowell Professor of Mathematics Education, University of Delaware Brian Gong, Executive Director, Center for Assessment (Co-Chair) Kenji Hakuta, Lee L. Jacks Professor of Education-bilingualism, Stanford University Kristin Buckstad Hamilton, Teacher, Battlefield Senior High School, NEA Feng-Jui Hsieh, Associate Professor of the Mathematics Department, National Taiwan Normal University Mary Ann Jordan, Teacher, New York City Dept of Education, AFT Jeremy Kilpatrick, Regents Professor of Mathematics Education, University of Georgia Dr. Jill Martin, Principal, Pine Creek High School Barry McGaw, Professor and Director of Melbourne Education Research Institute, University of Melbourne; Director for Education, OECD James Milgram, Professor Emeritus, Stanford University

CCSS Validation Committee David Pearson, Professor and Dean, Graduate School of Education, University of California, Berkeley Steve Pophal, Principal, DC Everest Junior High Stanley Rabinowitz, Senior Program Director, Assessment and Standards Development Services, WestEd Lauren Resnick, Distinguished University Professor, Psychology and Cognitive Science, Learning Sciences and Education Policy, University of Pittsburgh Andreas Schleicher, Head, Indicators and Analysis Division of the OECD Directorate for Education William Schmidt, University Distinguished Professor, Michigan State University Catherine Snow, Henry Lee Shattuck Professor of Education, Harvard Graduate School of Education Christopher Steinhauser, Superintendent of Schools, Long Beach Unified School District Sandra Stotsky, Professor of Education Reform, 21st Century Chair in Teacher Quality, University of Arkansas Dorothy Strickland, Samuel DeWitt Proctor Professor of Ed., Emerita, Distinguished Research Fellow, National Institute for Early Education Research, Rutgers, The State University of NJ Martha Thurlow, Director, National Center on Educational Outcomes, University of Minnesota Norman Webb, Senior Research Scientist, Emeritus, Wisconsin Center for Education Research, University of Wisconsin Dylan William, Deputy Director, Institute of Education, University of London

The Truth about CCSS CCSS are superior to the NJCCCS Global competition is real Too many students are NOT college or career ready CCSS are NOT a curriculum CCSS do NOT dictate lesson plans, materials, books, etc. Teachers participated in the CCSS development A PhD is NOT required to review, interpret, or implement standards Standards are the minimum basic expectations

Standards are not limits FACT: CCSS and PARCC place no ceilings on education in New Jersey Students can progress at differentiated rates and are not limited to grade-level standards. PARCC results can guide teachers to differentiate instruction for all students, including those who exceed grade-level standards

Be Informed and Keep ALL Stakeholders Informed “The expertise is in the room!” To schedule a visit by an NJSBA/NJPSA consultant, contact